Soapbox: After 40 years, a review of volunteer army is in order

Jun. 15, 2013

Robert F. Collins

“A standing Army, however necessary it may be at some times, is always dangerous to the liberties of the people. Soldiers are apt to consider themselves as a body distinct from the rest of the citizens.” — Samuel Adams, 1776

President Richard Nixon signed an order on July 1, 1973, abolishing conscription in the armed forces. Citizens had called for an end to the draft and the useless Vietnam War. The ’60s and ’70s were turbulent times. The country had split on support of the Vietnam War effort. The largest political protests in U.S. history were recorded. Today, as in the late ’60s, it is argued that a draft violates constitutional rights to be free from slavery and involuntary servitude. Today, the U.S. public favors an all-volunteer military over a draft by a 2-to-1 margin.

Now we have 40 years of experience with all-volunteer forces, enough time to make preliminary judgments about the efficacy of both systems. It is misleading to examine military performance in isolation during the 40-year time frame. Consideration must be given to seismic world events that influenced the uses of the military and the perceptions of the military by the citizenry. Some, certainly not all, events that affected the deployment and use of the military included the destruction of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the two Gulf Wars, 9/11 attacks, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, new technology in lethal weapons, a paralyzed Congress, an ever-expanding military-industrial complex, and an insidious campaign to convince the U.S. public that national security concerns trump all privacy concerns.

Today’s military is powerful, inured to hardship, skilled, superbly trained and battle tested. The military wants a volunteer force that is highly motivated relative to a conscripted Army. Today’s soldier on his fourth of fifth deployment to the Middle East serves out of a sense of patriotism and feelings of responsibility for his comrades.

However, the fact is today’s military is not representative of the USA. Less than 0.5 percent of the eligible population serves in the armed forces. The composition of the force is skewed; a vast majority of enlistees are from the South, somewhat disadvantaged and feel forced into the military so they can find employment.

(Page 2 of 2)

During the past 40 years, a new military caste has emerged. This caste is both self-contained and self-perpetuating. Relatively isolated from the civilian community, the military has its own housing, its own customs, its own history, its own traditions, mores and loyalties. It is relatively unaffected by nonmilitary directives. As the military moves away from civilian contacts, military customs are reinforced. A dangerous trend has emerged. Presidents tend to look on the military as their personal executive arm of action. The president is more likely to look on the military as his first option rather than his last option.

We live in a militaristic society. Despite statements to the contrary, the military has been tasked to engage in “nation building” missions. Nation building is not a military mission — it is a Department of State responsibility. War has been privatized — a step backward. The introduction and use of military contractors has increased operating costs, encouraged fraud, muddied operating parameters, removed accountability and generally disrupted military efficiency.

A conscript military does not have problems meeting enlistment goals. Despite the many advantages of an all-volunteer force, with a conscript military, the U.S. would not be involved in two 10-year wars, a massive debt and a disappearing middle class. Perhaps we chose the wrong road.